Public Interest in Global Warming Evaporates

12 Responses to Public Interest in Global Warming Evaporates

I feel like this just goes to show that the global warming concern is just a fad. In the 1970s, global cooling was all the rage! With all the other issues America has to be concerned about, global warming may have been put on a back burner (no pun intended) because it lacks priority in the larger scheme of things.

Interesting. I did some quick searches on Google Trends. “Intelligent Design” had big peaks during the Dover trial in 2005, but since then has remained relatively flat since, despite the release of “Expelled”. However, “creationism” has a big, sharp peak not very long ago. Google puts it around the time of the Michael Reiss fuss. “Evolution” has some peaks here and there, and “Darwinism” is rather volatile but fairly consistently so, with one peak around the release of “Expelled” but flat-lining since.

My guess is the election is stealing lots of attention this year. The recent large “creationism” peak could also have something to do with Palin maybe.

It also may be that interest in ID tracks with searches for creationism since the media consistently refers to ID as creationism. And if that’s what the majority of the public believes ID is then that’s what they’ll search for.

It is pretty obvious that global warming is a political ploy. Democratic news editors (which are almost all editors) are pumping out these stories to scare people into voting democrat. You are not likely to see much press coverage of stories that do not support global warming. I predict that after the presidential election the number of global warming stories will take a dive. Then we can all forget about this politics in the guise of bad science.

Peter – “Democratic news editors (which are almost all editors) are pumping out these stories to scare people into voting democrat. You are not likely to see much press coverage of stories that do not support global warming.”

I do not agree that the information passed on by news editors is the direct result of their political stance. In reality, we know that big businesses, who own the networks, determine the political spin of the news. (I’m not denying that many news editors are democratic, but simply that the direction of news stories are determined by money and by directing money into corporate hands. News stories will only support the democratic line so long as that political stance is the most profitable.)

I agree that after the presidential election the concerns over global warming will go unaddressed. However, I do not believe that the issue of global warming will be gone from the news because of the scientific changes our world is undergoing everyday. If the goal of the media is money, then why would a media source choose not to cover a story about a sheet of ice measuring several miles falling off the arctic shelf?

While the stories of global warming related to political candidates will undoubtedly decrease, our world will not let the issue completely leave our consciousness. At this point, the responsibility lies with the average Americans to remind the government that global warming is not “just a fad”. Whatever the environmental ramifications are of the 2008 election, let’s keep this issue at the top of the list for the next four years.

azapril, if you think that editors are concerned about the finances of their corporations then you are misinformed. Just take a look at the profitability of the New York Times and other liberal news organizations. They would rather go bankrupt than to consider changing their mindset. Liberal media is hemorrhaging readership while the Fox News network is No.1. Stockholders are so far removed from the editors that as long as the editors are not spouting Marxist rhetoric their jobs are secure.

We can’t do much about global warming unless someone can manipulate the spots on the sun. Mars had been undergoing global warming. Global warming has nothing to do with human activity. In any event, you have no cause for concern because global warming ended a couple of years ago. It is all just a political ploy used by democratic editors to elect democrats. I will concede however that it does scare people into buying newspapers. It benefits corporate interests in that way. Editors know their business. They are masters of public manipulation. They are smart enough to use their tremendous power to their own ends.

i think this is just a bunch of people freaking out so far, we really dont have to much to go off of or too much proof yet to say wether it is or isnt happening. yes i would say that the big spike in 2006 was because of Al Gore’s video and since then we have just happened to have two big natural disasters but that has really been it.
its not like they never happen, the reason they are freakin everyone out is because they only happen to that extent every so often, and it was time again. i dont think we have anything to worry about.

Hey, how about everybody setting aside the Democratic editors this, and the Democratic editors that, and all similar rhetoric? If a majority of newspaper editors ARE liberal (not saying they are, mind you), then it can equally be said that the majority of radio talk show hosts are conservative…as are the majority of newspaper publishers.

Involved1, if there were a FAQ, that would be on it. As many times as I have heard that argument, I have never heard the person expressing “balance” citing an equivalence between talk-show hosts and editors in “legitimacy”.

Compare “I read this in the New York Times” to “You’re just saying that because you heard it on Limbaugh!”

And almost every talk show hosts I heard has hardly tried to put the gloss of supposed impartiality on what they do, or that they are only reporting the news. Or delivering on your “right to know”.

The idea is that the issues are driven by liberal editors, then “sticking to the issues” is simple consent to another worldview. “Stick to the issues” is rather arrogant knowing in light of what the previous conversation has been about how the “issues” might have been violated. You’re not countering somebody’s worldview, you’re just summarily dismissing it. But that doesn’t surprise me dismissal and invalidation is the liberal argument.